Saddam and the proceduralist confusion

Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was executed earlier today. I actually have an old book from my grad school days called "The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq" by Hanna Batatu, written in 1978. It's a history of Iraq during the first three quarters of the 20th century. Lots of Marx and Weber. Anyway, I bring this up because I first read it right around the time of the first Gulf War, at which point Saddam had been firmly in control of Iraq for more than a decade. Having been published a year before Saddam's rise, however, the book only mentions Saddam in passing, as a deputy party member. (In an extensive table on Ba'ath party members, "Saddam Husain at-Takriti" is listed as an Arab Sunni born in 1937 in Takrit, formerly a secondary school teacher, party worker, deputy chairman, and Revolutionary Command Council member, and having attended law school. He is also described as a son of a peasant from the al-Begat tribal group.)

Leading to and following Saddam's execution, a number of human rights groups have decried the execution (1) as the result of an unfair trial and (2) under the theory that the death penalty is always wrong. (See Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.)

I'm not sure I get either of these points at the theory level. In law, procedure is necessary in order to achieve a fair result -- the discovery of whether or not the defendant is guilty of the crimes of which he or she is accused. Procedure is not sufficient for a fair result, nor is it necessary. It is just a very useful tool to getting there.

With Saddam, of course, the facts are not in dispute. The trial literally could have been run by kangaroos and the question of whether or not Saddam was responsible for ordering the deaths of thousands of people would still have been answered correctly (at least insofar as kangaroos could write out a verdict). So I'm not sure what these groups are getting at on the "unfair trial" point. Are they disputing that he was responsible for the atrocities with which he was accused? If not, why is procedure so important to them? Are they concerned about precedent? (That seems particularly odd, since Iraq has a civil law system that doesn't rely on precedent.) So, if the procedure is secondary, how was the conclusion of the court unfair? (Were the conclusions of the mobs that killed Benito Mussolini and Nicolae Ceausescu "unfair"? They certainly weren't inaccurate...)

The second point just seems like sloppy thinking. A lot of people oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it's irrevocable -- you make a mistake and execute the wrong guy, and you've committed a grave injustice that can't be rectified. But that's clearly not the case here. We all know the guy did it. And since we know that what Saddam did was about as heinous as crimes come (rape rooms, feeding children to dogs in front of their parents, delivering decapitated heads of political dissidents to their wives, etc. -- for a taste, read "Tales of the Tyrant" by Mark Bowden in The Atlantic), to still oppose the death penalty is to oppose the death penalty on all grounds, no matter what the crime and no matter how sure you are of who did it.

Why? The human rights groups offer only platitudes.

“Saddam Hussein was responsible for massive human rights violations, but that can’t justify giving him the death penalty, which is a cruel and inhuman punishment,” said Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch’s International Justice Program. “The test of a government’s commitment to human rights is measured by the way it treats its worst offenders,” said Dicker. “History will judge these actions harshly.”

Really? Why is it cruel and inhuman? Why is this a test of a government's commitment to human rights? Has history judged the execution of the Nazis harshly?

All I'm asking for is a thought out philosophical argument here. You know, a little Kant maybe?

Sen. Harry Reid too busy pretending to be relevant to foreign policy to attend Ford funeral

Since foreign policy is the domain of the executive branch, even if "U.S. relations with some of the countries are in need of improvement" (as Reid's spokesman Jim Manley apparently believes), how is Harry Reid's trip to South America not just a junket? Since they have absolutely no influence over U.S.-Latin American relations (except in the negative sense, if they don't vote in favor of a trade agreement), isn't that a lame excuse for missing Gerald Ford's funeral? (I'm not saying these senators should go -- I'm just saying that "I'm on a junket to South America" is a lame excuse.)

I love polar bears...but they have got to go

This is one to file under "People who haven't a clue". CNN is reporting that the US Interior Department will list polar bears as a "threatened" species.

I love polar bears. Not only are they cute, but they eat people, too. It's win-win all around. But what caught my eye about the polar bear story is that "Environmentalists hope that invoking the Endangered Species Act protections eventually might provide impetus for the government to cut back on its emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping 'greenhouse' gases that are warming the atmosphere." The story quotes Kassie Siegel, a lawyer for the Center for Biological Diversity, as saying, "This is a victory for the polar bear, and all wildlife threatened by global warming. There is still time to save polar bears but we must reduce greenhouse gas pollution immediately."

I've got news for you all: the Endangered Species Act has never been used as an impetus for massive social and economic change, and it never will be. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require very real changes that will effect the lives (and pocketbooks) of every American. A lawsuit by an environmental group asking the courts to force the government to protect polar bears by, for example, mandating strict new standards for cars, powerplants, beef consumption, etc. is a sure way to see the Endangered Species Act repealed or seriously watered-down.

Even if Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House.

Happy Holidays!

Er, I mean, "Merry Christmas!"

I, for one, don't mean to be starting any wars against Christmas. I saw what happened to Walmart. Given how powerful we know Walmart to be, anyone who can pull that off... I mean, when St. Nick's occupation forces come rolling in, I, for one, plan to be a loyal citizen of the new order. And when that whole "know who's naughty or nice" elvish secret police thing comes knocking, you better believe I will sell you out faster than a Frenchman at an Octoberfest brawl! As far as I'm concerned, snitchin' is bitchin'.

I'm still up this wee hour mostly because of tomorrow's feast. The fam's at my place this year, so my menu is:

Dolmades (to celebrate my Greek roots)

Thai rice sausages (because they're just so hard to find around here, I have to make them)

Spinach and pomegranate salad

Roasted beets with balsalmic vinegrette

Roasted fennel with beans (my version of that bean with cream of mushroom soup thing)

Creole spoon bread

Spiced glazed ham

Horseradish and pepper-crusted beef tenderloin with port reduction sauce

Molten chocolate cake with vanilla ice cream


So, I've pretty much been working on it since Saturday. Hope you're jealous.

My own private Turkmenistan

All of us mourn for the passing of Turkmenistan's president-for-life and Turkmenbashi Saparmurat Niyazov -- and not just Pakistan, of course. After all, who hasn't experienced times, when life is going a little rough, where we thought about that great man and all that he has accomplished, and said to ourselves, "I, too, can do great things! Someday, I too will rename three months of the calendar, write a rambling book of my deepest thoughts, and have a gigantic copy of that book put in the middle of my hometown, with a device to turn a page of that book every day and read out over a loud speaker what I've written therein!"

I'm telling you, it's thoughts like those that get me through the day. More days than you care to imagine.

But getting back to the great man himself, I thought we should honor his memory with a short list of just some of his great accomplishments:

1. His face is on the country's currency. Also its teabags, vodka, postage stamps, pretty much every vertical surface, quite a few horizontal surfaces, ...



2. He renamed January "Turkmenbashi" (after his own glorious leadershipness); he renamed October "Rukhnama" (the title of his book, the best-selling title in all of Turkmenistan); and, of course, he renamed December "Gurbansoltan" after his own mother. How sweet is that??



3. He introduced his own line of cologne



4. He banned Turkmen singers from performing to recorded music and newscasters from wearing make-up



5. He created a big gold statue of himself in the capital city that rotates to follow the sun



6. He banned gold teeth, beards and long hair in young people, because they're all a bunch of hippie freaks



7. He banned all hospitals and libraries anywhere other than his capital

That last one, to be honest, might not have been the smartest for someone with heart problems. But who's to say his heart wasn't in the right place? Well, let me rephrase -- he meant well, right?

Pageants gone wild!

Mary-n-Texas, my self-flagellating friend to whom this site is dedicated, asked for more salaciousness and skin. (By the way, is it "self-flagellation" if you hit yourself in the head with a hammer, Monty Python-style? Seems a bit more hardcore than that.) In particular, Mary brought up the shenanigans that recently got Miss Nevada, Katie Rees, stripped of her title. (Article here. More importantly, photos here. Even more interesting photos here.)

But this is what I don't get. From what I understand, the Miss USA/Miss Universe and Miss America pageants' ratings have been in decline for years. They are quaint, silly, sexist, anachronistic... whatever you want. More importantly, they generally are very boring, even after the introduction of two-piece bathing suits. So, from a purely marketing perspective, what's less boring than Miss Nevada topless, kissing other hot girls? Huh? Sure as hell beats international financial regulation, I can tell you that.

If you don't believe me, name one former Miss America or Miss USA whose name you remember and who later went on to bigger and better things? You can only think of one, can't you? Vanessa Williams.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Sometimes innovation is just not recognizing something's impossible

For example, who would have thought you could paint your face red, spray paint on a fake beard, and still get your photo taken for a new drivers license?

I think I saw this on 'Jurassic Park'

Komodo dragon virgin births. But what I don't get is, if a female lizard swam out to some strange island (say the Galapagos) and then laid self-fertilized eggs, and then mated with the hatchlings... I mean, whoa, that'd be like West Virginia in terms of genetic diversity in the population, wouldn't it?

Public service anti-drug message #1

And to think, this woman wasn't even high yet.

A North Carolina woman was arrested after complaining to a police officer that the crack cocaine she had just purchased wasn't very good, authorities said. Eloise D. Reaves, 50, approached the Putnam County sheriff's deputy at a convenience store Friday, telling him that another man had sold her "bad crack" that contained wax and cocaine. She pulled an alleged crack rock out of her mouth and placed it on the deputy's car for inspection, the Palatka Daily News reported for Tuesday editions.

As Mr. Mackey might say, "Children, crack will make ya stupid, m'kay?" Really really really mind-blowingly working-really-hard-at-it stupid.

Thanks to Pokey. ...Wow...

File under: "People who don't know what they are talking about"

A surprisingly large number of European officials seem to fall under this category. The latest news flash comes from the Terry Davis, secretary general of Council of Europe, who says the days of the death penalty in the United States are at the "definitive beginning of the end... I have no doubt that this trend is welcomed by a lot of Americans who, given a proper choice, prefer just security to cruel revenge.'' (See Days numbered for US death penalty.)

Personally, I prefer cruel revenge. It's a dish best served cold. With a little apple sauce on the side.

But while we're on the topic of European officials and the apparent legalization of hallucinogenic drugs, if you ever wonder whether the Europeans have gotten off that whole "only-white-Western-Europeans-are-civilized-the-rest-of-the-world-is-a-bunch-of-primative-savages" thing, you don't really have to look farther than just about anything they have to say on the death penalty. For example, Davis says, "The United States of America is on its way to join the rest of the civilized world where this inhuman and barbaric punishment has already been rejected." Which, apparently, means Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea -- indeed, pretty much all of Asia -- are not part of the civilized world. (Seriously here. Whenever Europeans talk about "world opinion" or "international" this or that, they pretty much just mean Europe.)

But I suppose Terry could be right. On the other hand, since we in the U.S. currently are debating legalizing torture, I'm guessing the death penalty is not feeling too threatened.

The Park Bitches set me up!

Oh, Marion... Where would Washington, D.C. be without you? If you weren't being arrested for something on a regular basis, and then later widely reelected...well, DC might actually get a vote in Congress!

See Barry Arrested, Claims He Was Targeted.

More fun from North Korea

The latest issue of China Security (a journal "dedicated to providing a Chinese perspective on issues that will shape [the US-China] bilateral relations in the decades ahead") has three articles by Chinese academics on North Korea's decision to develop nuclear weapons. Chinese academics, of course, operate under a very different environment than their U.S. counterparts. Whereas U.S. academics have tenure and can say whatever absurd things come into their minds, Chinese professors can easily find themselves in prison for saying even the most benign things, if it displeases the Chinese government. Accordingly, what these academics have to say about Chinese-North Korean relations represents more than just your typical professorial musings. The articles likely were cleared by Communist Party officials and, consequently, may signal official government thinking.

The first essay, Coping with a Nuclear North Korea, by Liangui Zhang, a professor of international strategic research at the Party School of the China Communist Party Central Committee, summarizes the issue for China:

On Oct. 9, 2006, North Korea brazenly carried out a nuclear test in defiance of the international community. The test reveals that long ago the DPRK’s leaders made a decision to develop and possess nuclear weapons. Having crossed the nuclear threshold, it is unlikely that Pyongyang will give up its possession of such weapons.

North Korea’s action was undoubtedly a challenge to the international community’s staunch opposition to nuclear proliferation. It has furthermore seriously damaged peace and stability in Northeast Asia. If North Korea’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is analyzed from the perspective of the North Korean nuclear crisis as a process still underway as well as the result of North Korea already a nuclear nation, we find that the degree of cost and benefit differs for each of the relevant parties. Regardless, however, China is the biggest loser.

Zhang believes that it is clear that North Korea long ago decided to develop nuclear weapons, and that previous agreements to the contrary (such as the Clinton Administration's agreement to provide assistance to North Korea in exchange for their abandonment of a nuclear development program) were merely delaying tactics. From a US perspective, this is interesting, because it means that, Democratic criticisms of the Bush Administration's policies towards North Korea notwithstanding, North Korea was hellbent on these weapons from the beginning, for both international and domestic reasons:

...nuclear weapons also serve to restore the strategic balance – even if only psychological – with South Korea. Since 1948, when the North and South states were founded, there has existed an acute struggle over inheritance of the Korean Peninsula. The balance of comprehensive national strength began to tip in the early 1970s, and widened dramatically with the South’s economic power growing 30 times greater than the North. Frustrating the North is the fact that there is no conceivable reversal for the near future. North Korean leaders see mastering nuclear weapons as the only possible measure to dispel the fear of failure in this competition and, even possibly to take the initiative in unifying the Korean Peninsula through force.

...

With a stagnant economy and worsening poverty of its people, successful tests provide them with an explanation since nuclear weapons are regarded as a symbol of national strength and scientific and technological prowess. This can be seen in slogans like “military-first politics” and “construct a powerful country.” The nuclear program helps to stabilize society, eliminate feelings of failure and enhance the legitimacy of the system.

The other interesting point of Zhang's article is how much this situation sucks from the Chinese perspective. Partly, this is because the big winner is Japan:

Under the pretext of guarding against North Korean missiles, Japan has sharply increased its military spending, set up the missile defense system in cooperation with the United States, launched several reconnaissance satellites, expanded the maritime combat force, drawn up a strategy for a preemptive strike and strengthened the Japanese-American alliance, thereby accomplishing a long held wish. Furthermore, according to Japanese media coverage dated May 22, 2005, a report from the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee claimed that if China continued its ambiguous policies on the North Korean nuclear issue then the United States would encourage Japan to become nuclearized and turn “Japanese nuclear weapons” against “North Korean nuclear weapons.” It would also organize an “alliance system” that included Taiwan, Australia, South Korea, Japan and other Southeast Asian countries and regions. In this way, Japan would in one stroke become a nuclear power and a central force in a new East Asian military alliance.

By contrast, the US a nuclearized North Korea is a mixed bag. The North Korean threat allows the US to strengthen its military alliances throughout Asia, and in a way that makes it difficult for China to protest. The US will also have an easier time keeping South Korea and Japan allied. On the down side, nuclear proliferation to other states may snowball, and there is always the risk that North Korea will sell or give a nuclear weapon to terrorists.

For China, however:

...the losses for China far outweigh any gains. Since China is in strategic competition with the United States and Japan, their gains, as set out above, are China’s losses. To make matters worse, some of their losses are also losses for China. This latter category would include nuclear proliferation and the consequent instability in East Asia.

Zhang also points out that the "lesson of Vietnam should not be forgotten." For Chinese, of course, the "lesson of Vietnam" is very different than it is for Americans. (China supplied North Vietnam with weapons during the US war there, only to see many of those weapons turned against it when China and Vietnam went to war in 1979.) In other words, North Korean nuclear weapons may be pointed at Japan and South Korea today, but that doesn't mean they won't be pointed in China's direction tomorrow.

By contrast, in North Korea's Strategic Significance to China, Professor Dingli Shen of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, argues that, for China, North Korea is inextricably linked to the Taiwan issue. In particular, Shen argues that so long as North Korea focuses the attention of the United States, the US will not have the military resources or will to protect Taiwan against China. Although this is a very different view from the one Zhang takes, the conclusion is the same: any bilateral US-North Korea arrangement is problematic, because it will necessarily come at the expense of China's interest. A second bad outcome would be a war between the United States and North Korea -- primarily because North Korea would lose and then China would face a united Korean, Japanese, and Taiwanese front led by the US.

A third view, Shifting Tides: China and North Korea by Feng Zhu, professor of the School of International Studies and director of the International Security Program at Peking University, argues that public perceptions of North Korea in China are changing, and these changes will have an effect on China's future policies. According to Zhu, North Korea's actions, first by testing long-range missiles and then by developing nuclear weapons, have had negative implications for China's security and were carried out despite strenuous Chinese objections. In this sense, North Korea has demonstrated it does not care what China, its one and only benefactor, thinks. Chinese leaders now wonder whether they have been backing the wrong horse and that perhaps closer relations with South Korea is in China's long-term economic and security best interests (particularly given South Korean antipathy towards Japan and occasional resentment of the United States).

Of these arguments, Zhang's and Zhu's seems most rational, but it is unclear whether this is a debate among individuals or a debate within the Chinese hierarchy. Shen believes that a nuclearized Japan would alienate the United States. Under the current situation, this seems unlikely. At the same time, Shen's view that North Korea is a deterrent to US activity in the region (because the US must maintain troops on the Korean peninsula) seems stretched. US troops remain in Korea not because of North Korea, but because of South Korea, Japan and, significantly, China. (The view in the US is that without at least the appearance of a US commitment, Japan would go nuclear and South Korea and China would have heart attacks.) Of course, it seems quite possible that all of these views are held.

Vienna to promote cross-dressing by showing men wearing skirts doing things

In order to promote "gender mainstreaming," the quaint Austrian village of Vienna will now mandate that cross walk signs show men in skirts trying to cross the street instead of just men in pants crossing the street. In a nod to the lesbian community, the new ordinance also mandates that baby-changing stations in restrooms show women wearing comfortable slacks changing the baby, instead of the more traditional woman in a skirt cleaning up the little poop machine.

Interestingly, however, the new ordinance does not change street signs warning drivers of construction workers ahead. These signs will continue to show men and lesbians wearing pants, instead of skirts.

See article here.

The Internet is a dangerous place to tell a joke

Speaking of interesting websites, it's hard to beat HornyManatee.com. It's one of those things just destined to be created.

According to the New York Times, HornyManatee was created in a panic, after Conan O'Brien ad-libbed that a "voyeur" shown on the Conan O'Brien Show was watching that website. Of course, at the time, no such website existed. But the show's bright lawyers realized as soon as taping was over that this situation would change in a heartbeat, probably not in a good way, and possibly in a way that would lead to lawsuits for the show should someone buy the domain name and post "inappropriate" material.

(Which begs the question: What material could possibly be considered "inappropriate" on a website called HornyManatee.com? "Your honor, Conan O'Brien mentioned a website called 'HornyManatee.com' in reference to an obviously disturbed voyeur, and when I went to that site I was shocked -- shocked! -- to find there were no horny manatees at all!...")

So, a few minutes and $159 later, NBC found itself the proud owner of a new website.

Ms. Dewey

I was checking out Microsoft's new search engine, Ms. Dewey. She's very addictive. I'm not sure whether or not she actually got me the websites I was looking for. You kind of forget about that part after a while.

Bolton should know better

OK, I know outgoing US ambassador to the UN John Bolton is doing this just to annoy all those Europeans out there going around suing US government officials for various human rights issues, but still...this is childish. (See Move to charge Ahmadi-Nejad over Israel remarks). I don't care if genocide is an international crime of some sort, there still should be such a thing as sovereign immunity, unless you're so obnoxious that someone comes in an militarily kicks your butt. And "inciting" genocide? Puleeze.

I mean, two wrongs don't make a right. And we shouldn't be encouraging the idea that international law is anything that it isn't (i.e., that it means much at all). No matter what Amandarodintodd says about Israel.

Saudis to help Sunnis in Iraq

Hey, didn't I say this would happen? Didn't I??

See the NYT's "Saudis Give a Grim What If Should U.S. Opt to Leave Iraq":

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia conveyed that message to Vice President Dick Cheney two weeks ago during Mr. Cheney’s whirlwind visit to Riyadh, the officials said. During the visit, King Abdullah also expressed strong opposition to diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran, and pushed for Washington to encourage the resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, senior Bush administration officials said.

The Saudi warning reflects fears among America’s Sunni Arab allies about Iran’s rising influence in Iraq, coupled with Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. King Abdullah II of Jordan has also expressed concern about rising Shiite influence, and about the prospect that the Shiite-dominated government would use Iraqi troops against the Sunni population.

And compare that with what I said here. Particularly this part:

While it is possible that the warring factions in Iraq will see the danger that faces them as the US withdraws (and this withdrawal might therefore force them to the negotiating table), this scenario seems less likely because outside forces will push for war. Iraq’s neighbors will not silently watch this drama unfold. Sunni/Wahhabi jihadists (many of them foreign) will continue a terror campaign against Iraq’s Shi’ite communities in order to forestall a Shi’ite-dominated Iraq. Iran, by contrast, will see an Iraqi civil war (and the absence of American troops) as their single greatest opportunity to dominate the region, and they will lend their full support behind the Shi’ite Iraqi side. Iraq has been Iran’s most significant regional enemy, even before the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, and even though the majority of Iraq’s citizens are members of the same Muslim denomination as the Iranians (Shia’ism), the ethnic divide should not be underestimated. Iran will prefer to see a unified Iraq under Iranian control, but they will prefer to see a divided Iraq over a unified, but independent country. We can also expect that the Sunni Arab states will recognize this Iranian opportunity for what it is, and will use their wealth and military resources to help ensure that Iran does not achieve its goal — even if that means supporting jihadists. At a minimum, this will mean that, absent US troops, a full-scale Iraqi civil war will be very difficult to avert, and likely will be extremely bloody. In a worst-case scenario, an Iraqi civil war could spark an all-out war between Iran and the Sunni Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria and even Egypt.

Why doesn't anyone listen to me?

Incoming House intelligence chief botches easy intel quiz

Congressional Quarterly national security editor Jeff Stein got to ask incoming House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) some basic questions on intelligence-related matters, which Rep. Reyes promptly botched. I mean, got wrong in the way that would get you a "D" in a basic undergraduate political science class. (See "Democrats’ New Intelligence Chairman Needs a Crash Course on al Qaeda".)

So, that leads me to several questions:

1. Is your basic Congressman an idiot? I mean, seriously. Don't they read the materials their staffers give them? Don't they even read the newspapers? When it comes to House elections, are we basically electing the D students? And why?
2. Shouldn't we have these have these kinds of tests for all House and Senate committee chairmen, in their respective fields? For example, for the House Financial Services Committee, we could give them a test that asks whether they know the difference between debt and equity? The new chairman of the Armed Services Committee could be asked whether he or she knows the difference between a ballistic missile submarine and an aircraft carrier (and could they identify photos of them)? The House Ways and Means Committee chairman could be asked to balance a checkbook.
3. Should we make such tests mandatory for all committee members?

I'm not asking for "gotcha" type questions. Just the very basics. Because, frankly, if you've been a member of the House Intelligence Committee for several years already and you don't know that Al Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist organization, or that Hezbollah is Shi'ite, how can you effectively lead this committee?

And I don't want you to be thinking that I'm just picking on Reyes, or that I'm an academic snob (though I am). I'm not saying everyone needs a PhD here, but taking a quick look though the Intelligence Committee membership's education credentials (with a handful of happy exceptions), is a little depressing:

Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas): Associates degree, El Paso Community College
Pete Hoekstra (R-Michigan): BA, Hope College and MBA, Univ. of Michigan
Ray LaHood (R-Illinois): BS, Bradley University
Jane Harman (D-California): Smith College and Harvard Law School
Terry Everett (R-Alabama): attended a community college (but apparently did not graduate)
Leonard L. Boswell (D-Iowa): BA, Graceland College, Artillery Officers Candidate School, Army Aviation Fixed Wing Flight School, Army Aviation Helicopter Flight School, Army Command and General Staff College
Jo Anne Davis (R-Virginia): attended Hampton Roads Business College, (but apparently did not graduate)
Bud Cramer (D-Alabama): BA, JD Univ. of Alabama
Anna G. Eshoo (D-California): Associates degree, Canada College

NSA bugged Princess Di

Actually, sounds like pretty much everyone did, according to the Britain's Guardian. Even her driver (the drunk guy) was working for the French Direction de la surveillance du territoire.

What I don't get is why the Guardian is acting all surprised that we'd tap her phones. Come on, what do you think we pay these Maryland folks to do, just spy on Arabs? We spy on everybody! And everybody spies on us.

It's all kinda fair that way.

Russians to NASA: Can we come with?

Part of me thinks this story ("Russia Wants to Join U.S. Moon Plan") is cool -- it would be nice to have the Russians on a lunar roadtrip. Just so long as they don't slip some polonium in your vodka, they're probably a lot of fun. I'm just not so sure about that "we'd like to provide technology instead of cash" thing.

Don't get me wrong -- the Russians really know how to do a lot with very little! They are masters at that "getting 80% of the way there at 20% of the price" thing. It's just that they also seem to have a very high willingness to accept "accidents." (Remember that Moscow theater siege? You definitely get the feeling that losing a quarter of the hostages was considered "acceptable losses." That may work for them, but would you really want to ride a rocket built by these guys?)

I wonder if the Japanese have any interest in going to the moon...

Ever wunder why are kids is stupid?

You think maybe school administrators have something to do with it? I mean, I'm glad to see that this four-year old won't have to register as a sex offender or something ("4 -year-old Accused of Improperly Touching Teacher"), but how stupid does a school district have to be to refuse to apologize to the parents of a 4-k tyke who likes to give hugs?

Pretty stupid. (And the district's lawyer is even stupider. He or she is either giving really bad advice, or needs a new client.)

Sad day: Jeane Kirkpatrick passed away

Even when I was a kid, I thought our own version of Margaret Thatcher was a great. She'll be remembered along with George Kennan and Paul Nitze as one of those scholar-statesmen who helped put the nails in the coffin of communism.

"Wild and Woolly" Britney Spears?

Bette Midler goes off on Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan. (See Bette Midler slams 'wild and woolly slut' Britney)

"Wild" I can see. But woolly? Really? I wouldn't exactly describe it that way.

For either of them.

My Weekly Fatwa (or MDF NASCAR edition)

This is my new blog. It's designed to do two things: (1) return to my original plan of bitching about whatever I feel like bitching about, and (2) cater to my friends and family who have grown increasingly tired of my rantings about financial issues in My Daily Fatwa. Turns out it's easier for me to rant authoritatively and regularly on a topic I actually know something about. However, what I know well is something that is really really boring to most people, even if it is really really important to a small group of extremely over-compensated people. (I need to figure out how to make a buck on that someday...)

So, "My Weekly Fatwa" will probably be more frequent than "weekly" (the "My Daily Fatwa" name already having been taken), but the writing quality will probably be more along the lines of "My Weekly Reader".

Do they still have My Weekly Readers? Or am I really really dating myself here? I also thought about calling it "MDF No FRed" ("My Daily Fatwa No Financial Regulation Edition"), but that was just too much inside baseball. "NASCAR edition", though, is homage to my friend Mary-n-Texas -- as in, "Mary, if you don't like my blog, go watch some TV. I'm sure there's some NASCAR on somewhere."